1) ὅπῃ ἔχει - "you have in this way" What is this doing here? We already have a finite verb with οἴει. How can we have another? And is this how you would translate it? Is there an easy way of looking it up in Smyth or LSJ to see if it is perhaps an idiom? I just use Google which is kind of hit or miss. I type in something like ὅπῃ ἔχει Smyth site:perseus.tufts.edu Is there a better way? Nate?

2) ὥστε τούτων οὕτω πραχθέντων ὡς σὺ λέγεις Is this a genitive absolute? And I thought that ὥστε was mainly for result clauses? Is there some result clause lurking here?

I was just reviewing a whole chart of correlatives before reading this sentence and it kinda made me mad that I still had questions.

1) ὅπῃ ἔχει - "you have in this way" What is this doing here? We already have a finite verb with οἴει. How can we have another? And is this how you would translate it? Is there an easy way of looking it up in Smyth or LSJ to see if it is perhaps an idiom? I just use Google which is kind of hit or miss. I type in something like ὅπῃ ἔχει Smyth site:perseus.tufts.edu Is there a better way? Nate?

It's an indirect question, with τά θεῖα "the acts of the gods" implied as subject from the preceding genitive. This is called prolepsis.

"...do you suppose you know so precisely about the acts of the gods, how [in what way] they uphold, and about...[etc.]"

τούτων οὕτω πραχθέντων is a genitive absolute, yes, and οὕτω is correlated with the following ὡς clause: "...with those things having thus been done as you say...".

pster wrote:And I thought that ὥστε was mainly for result clauses? Is there some result clause lurking here?

It is a result clause indeed. οὑτωσὶ is just a strange form of οὕτω[ς], which often triggers a subsequent result clause. The -ί is an emphatic demonstrative particle that can be added to any demonstrative pronoun (or adverb in this case).

1. οἴει is 2nd sg. classic attic form of deponent οἴομαι but ἔχει is 3rd sg. act.I would read this ἔχω as simply to be: LSJ Β. ΙΙ.

"...how [in what way] they are, and about...[etc.]"

2. I think ὥστε goes with οὐ φοβῇ... and the genitive absolute is in place of a conditional clause:"...that, if these things are done in the manner as you say, you are not afraid..."though I am not sure how to read ὅπως. I'll look into it later.

2) Can you give me a gloss of how this would read as a result clause? I understand about outwsi.

Thanks.

Not sure what you mean by a 'gloss', but just extending the translation I gave earlier should make it clear:"...do you suppose you know so precisely [οὑτωσὶ ἀκριβῶς] about the acts of the gods...[etc.]...that [ὥστε] your are not frightened..."

I thought maybe that too, at first, but it seemed a bit too colorless. My translation was based on the intransitive use of ἔχω listed immediately after B., meaning something like "keep up/maintain themselves". But the only translation I can find of this passage leaves the clause in question entirely untranslated, so you may be right.

NateD26 wrote:2. I think ὥστε goes with οὐ φοβῇ... and the genitive absolute is in place of a conditional clause:"...that, if these things are done in the manner as you say, you are not afraid..."though I am not sure how to read ὅπως. I'll look into it later.

φοβῇ (for pster: 2nd sing. of contract verb φοβέομαι) is the main verb of the result clause, if that's what you mean. ὅπως goes with μὴ as a simple clause of fearing, hence the subjunctive τυγχάνῃς that follows.

Do you believe so strictly the knowledge about the gods--that in some way you lay claim to--and about the holy and the unholy, that {result correlative with the earlier "so"}, things having happened as you say, you do not fear, by prosecuting your father, somehow you will in turn just now be doing something unholy?

On this reading, the genitive absolute is not in place of a conditional clause, but is rather just parenthetical. The antecedent is the οἴει way back at the beginning! Socrates is skeptically drilling on that. Hence the subordinate ὅπῃ ἔχει.

ὥστε should have a comma after it to mark off the parenthetical "things (having) happened as you say". Bad Loeb!

ἔχω would be second person singular middle and ὅπῃ would be indefinite relative!

By Jupiter, Euthyphro, do you then suppose that you have such precise knowledge about divine matters, in what manner they consist [?], and about what is holy and what is unholy, that you do not fear, if those things were done as you say, that by prosecuting your father you might accidentally, in turn, commit some unholy act?

σὺ....οὑτωσὶ ἀκριβῶς οἴει ἐπίστασθαι περὶ... literally means: "Do you think you know so precisely about...?" οἴει introduces indirect discourse, with ἐπίστασθαι being the infinitive of indirect discourse (subject implied because it is the same as the subject of the main clause). Also, θείων is definitely genitive of θεῖα ("divine things"), not of θεοί ("gods"), which would be θεῶν.

I'm still a bit unsure how to translate ὅπῃ ἔχει. It could be an indefinite relative, as you say, since it is identical in form to the indirect interrogative, but in that case it would mean "in whatever manner" or "however". If it had τῶν θείων as it's antecedent, which is how you seem to be taking it, and if ἔχει is middle with the meaning you've chosen, then I would expect it be ὀπῶν. I'm not quite convinced.

I also agree with NateD26 that the genitive absolute clause probably has conditional force. The context suggests that Socrates is only conditionally accepting the truth of Euthyphro's accusations against his own father.

Since the beginning I have not understood how you can take something singular and make it plural. I'm sure the fault is on my end, but I don't see how you can get "they consist". Can you explain that again?

I know that it seems like indirect discourse, but why can't we take ἐπίστασθαι just as a substantive?

I was taking (substantive) ἐπίστασθαι as the antecedent of ὅπῃ ἔχει--Euthyphro is laying claim to knowledge in some (whatever) manner.

Yes, I should make it more indefinite. I would rework my translation a bit to say "in whatever manner you lay claim to".

I don't mind taking the genitive absolute to have conditional force. It obviously does. But I was just making the point that it is not the antecedent of the result clause. That is the οὑτωσὶ at the beginning. I think that antecedents of result clauses are (almost) always introduced by οὑτω. Do you disagree with that either in general or in this case?

I got the "just now" from LSJ. It was one of the twenty meanings they listed for τυγχάνῃς--"just now be". Since Euthyphro is actually at the courthouse, it seemed the best. See below.***************II. joined with the part. of another Verb to express a coincidence, τύχησε γὰρ ἐρχομένη νηῦς a ship happened to be, i. e. was just then, starting, Od.14.334; “ξεῖνος ἐὼν ἐτύχησε παρ᾽ ἱπποδάμοισι Γερηνοῖς” Hes.Fr.15.3, cf. Semon.7.19, Pi.N.1.49; “πρυτανεία ἣ ἂν τυγχάνῃ πρυτανεύουσα” IG12.63.27, cf. 52; τὰ νοέων τυγχάνω what I happen to have, i.e. have at this moment, in my mind, Hdt. 1.88, cf. 8.65,68.“ά; ἐτετεύχεε ἐπισπόμενος” Id.3.14; ὃ τυγχάνω μαθών which I have just learnt, S.Tr.370; παρὼν ἐτύγχανον I was by just then, Id.Aj. 748; τυγχάνει καθεύδων he is sleeping just now, Ar.V.336 (troch.); ἔτυχον στρατευόμενοι they were just then engaged in an expedition, Th.1.104; ἔτυχε κατὰ τοῦτο καιροῦ ἐλθών he came just at this point of time, Id.7.2; ἥτις δέ τοι μάλιστα σωφρονεῖν δοκεῖ, αὕτη μέγιστα τυγχάνει λωβωμένη she is just the one who . . , Semon.7.109; but freq. τυγχάνω cannot be translated at all, esp. in phrase τυγχάνω ὤν, which is simply = εἰμί, S.Aj.88, Ar.Pl.35, Pl.Prt.313c, etc.

Actually, ὅπῃ ἔχει is (indefinite relative) adverbial isn't it? So couldn't we take the antecedent to be the whole finite plus infinitive verb phrase? Then we would have indirect discourse. And we could translate it:

Do you so accurately believe you know about the gods--in whatever manner you lay claim to--and about the holy and the unholy....

pster wrote:Since the beginning I have not understood how you can take something singular and make it plural.

Neuter plural subjects regularly take 3rd singular verb forms. Unfortunately I'm not NateD26 and so I don't have an instant cite to Smythe, but you must have learned this somewhere in your studies. Granted, it's easy enough to forget.

pster wrote:I'm sure the fault is on my end, but I don't see how you can get "they consist". Can you explain that again?

As I said before, I'm still not entirely clear on how best to translate this clause, hence the [?], but the "consist" part comes from the same citation Nate gave in the LSJ: B.II. (a little further along)

pster wrote:I know that it seems like indirect discourse, but why can't we take ἐπίστασθαι just as a substantive?

I was taking (substantive) ἐπίστασθαι as the antecedent of ὅπῃ ἔχει.

Yes, I should make it more indefinite. I would rework my translation a bit to say "in whatever manner you lay claim to".

ἐπίστασθαι is an infinitive, is it not? If it were truly meant as a substantive I'd have expected an articular τό ἐπίστασθαι. Indirect discourse just seems more parsimonious to me, especially since it comes after a verb of thinking/supposing (οἴει). Either way, though, since ὅπῃ is an adverbial relative anyway, it can naturally have an entire clause as it's antecedent. I'm just not sure how to make sense of that interpretation, even if it's a grammatical possibility.

pster wrote:I don't mind taking the genitive absolute to have conditional force. It obviously does. But I was just making the point that it is not the antecedent of the result clause. That is the οὑτωσὶ at the beginning. I think that antecedents of result clauses are (almost) always introduced by οὑτω. Do you disagree with that either in general or in this case?

Sorry, I don't follow. How could the genitive absolute be "the antecedent of the result clause"? It's part of the result clause itself, i.e. subordinate to it. That would a grammatical impossibility, as far as I can tell.

Result clauses aren't always triggered by οὑτω[ς], but that's one of the tell-tale signifiers, yes. Others are adjectives like τοσοῦτος or τηλίκος, or a comparative adjective, or just the sense of the preceding clause alone.

pster wrote:I got the "just now" from LSJ. It was one of the twenty meanings they listed for τυγχάνῃς--"just now be". Since Euthyphro is actually at the courthouse, it seemed the best.

Everything is fine as per result clauses. I was confused initially and then I misunderstood what Nate wrote. You were clear from the outset.

I did not know that about neuter plural nouns taking singular verbs. It is not in Mastronarde that I recall. But thanks.

And yes, divine things, not gods. Sorry I have been ignoring that issue.

Now I understand your interpretation better. I haven't read the Euthyphro in a long time, but I'll reserve judgment about interpretations until I'm done. I like your interpretation of ὅπῃ ἔχει a lot more now that I understand it. It makes a lot of sense.

But, I really like my new take on ὅπῃ ἔχει also. Do you really think it is defective in some way?

(Incidentally, what does ὀπῶν mean? I don't think I know this word? Juice? Hole? I don't think you meant that. Even reversing the breathing mark I'm at a loss.)

pster wrote:Everything is fine as per result clauses. I was confused initially and then I misunderstood what Nate wrote. You were clear from the outset.

I did not know that about neuter plural nouns taking singular verbs. It is not in Mastronarde that I recall. But thanks.

I'd love to know in which points I wasn't clear. Hopefully, I'd be of more help in the future.

I find it hard to believe you didn't know this rule; you've most likely forgotten it, as I knowit's in Mastronarde (don't have access to the book, but when I did in my university's library, i rememberlearning this rule among others), and from my experience, it's not a rule one tends to immediatelycommit to memory.

Imber Ranae wrote:ὅπως goes with μὴ as a simple clause of fearing, hence the subjunctive τυγχάνῃς that follows.

I've noticed in LSJ under ὅπως that verbs of fear can be followed by ὅπως/ὅπως μή but the subordinate verb is either fut. ind. or aor. subj. At least these are the only examples Liddell-Scottreferenced. I couldn't find this in Smyth. What was the reason of using the present subj. and not the aor. τύχῃς?

pster wrote:Everything is fine as per result clauses. I was confused initially and then I misunderstood what Nate wrote. You were clear from the outset.

I did not know that about neuter plural nouns taking singular verbs. It is not in Mastronarde that I recall. But thanks.

I'd love to know in which points I wasn't clear. Hopefully, I'd be of more help in the future.

I find it hard to believe you didn't know this rule; you've most likely forgotten it, as I knowit's in Mastronarde (don't have access to the book, but when I did in my university's library, i rememberlearning this rule among others), and from my experience, it's not a rule one tends to immediatelycommit to memory.

I never said you were unclear. I said I misunderstood what you wrote.

OK, I found it in Mastronarde. As for the Apology, every Greek sentence throws up multiple puzzles. If I can figure out half of them I book it as a win.

Imber Ranae wrote:ὅπως goes with μὴ as a simple clause of fearing, hence the subjunctive τυγχάνῃς that follows.

I've noticed in LSJ under ὅπως that verbs of fear can be followed by ὅπως/ὅπως μή but the subordinate verb is either fut. ind. or aor. subj. At least these are the only examples Liddell-Scottreferenced. I couldn't find this in Smyth. What was the reason of using the present subj. and not the aor. τύχῃς?

LSJ say "rarely with pres." and then give this very passage.

I thought that by the time one got to this point one had to accept that not every explanandum has an explanans. Is there any place where LSJ explains the rare occurrences of something?

In the context of this particular passage I would just point out that we need to keep in mind that τυγχάνῃς is already a funky kind of verb, that the subjunctive takes aspect meaning, and that Euthyphro's action is a long drawn out one (i.e. a court case). So the present aspect may work better than the aorist aspect. Come to think about it, that Socrates adopts this "rare" usage supports my temporally broader translation "just now be" rather than a more punctuated translation along the lines of "be about to".

pster wrote:Now I understand your interpretation better. I haven't read the Euthyphro in a long time, but I'll reserve judgment about interpretations until I'm done. I like your interpretation of ὅπῃ ἔχει a lot more now that I understand it. It makes a lot of sense.

But, I really like my new take on ὅπῃ ἔχει also. Do you really think it is defective in some way?

Dunno. I would expect this use of ἔχω to have an explicit object, but I may be incorrect in making that assumption.

pster wrote:(Incidentally, what does ὀπῶν mean? I don't think I know this word? Juice? Hole? I don't think you meant that. Even reversing the breathing mark I'm at a loss.)

Oops, I somehow copy-pasted the wrong thing.

I meant ὁπόσων (though perhaps ὧντινων would work as well). The middle use of ἔχω with the meaning you're going for takes a genitive object, like other verbs of holding/grasping/touching, e.g. ἅπτομαι "take hold of".

But, by Zeus, you yourself, Euthyphro, do you think you know so exactly divine things, and are able to unravel so precisely what is pious from what is impous, that, everything having happened as you tell, you pursue your father without fear of committing an impiety.

1) This translation is a bit loose, but no looser than the Loeb.2) ἔχει does not get translated with "divine things" as its subject. Instead, it seems to get reworked as a phrase with Euthyphro as subject and his being able to unravel divine things as predicate. This lends some support to reading it as 2p middle.3) τούτων οὕτω πραχθέντων ὡς σὺ λέγεις does not get an explicit "if" to mark its conditional force, but rather the conditional force is just implicit in a gerund. (I think we are all on the same page on this matter by this point anyway.)4) τυγχάνῃς more or less drops out indicating that the translator didn't feel that it had any sharp semantic meaning but rather is more of a helper verb.